Tariff classification of packing boxes depends on physical construction; misleading declarations can justify the extended limitation period.

Packing boxes for vials and ampoules were held classifiable under Chapter 4819.19 because their outer structure was made of plain duplex board, and the internal compartmental shape did not make them corrugated paper or paperboard boxes under Chapter 4819.12. The HSN meaning of corrugated paperboard was applied to require a corrugated layer or layers with flat surface sheets, with the box as a whole constructed from such material. On limitation, materially different declarations and correspondence, together with a misleading description of the goods, constituted suppression of material facts, so the extended period was invocable and the demand was not time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the packing boxes for vials and ampoules were classifiable under Chapter 4819.12 as corrugated paper or paperboard boxes or under Chapter 4819.19 as boxes made of plain duplex board; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period was invocable on account of suppression of facts.

Issue (i): Whether the packing boxes for vials and ampoules were classifiable under Chapter 4819.12 as corrugated paper or paperboard boxes or under Chapter 4819.19 as boxes made of plain duplex board.

Analysis: The sample box showed that the outer structure was made of plain duplex board and that the internal compartmental shape relied upon by the appellant was not corrugated paper or paperboard. Corrugated paperboard, as understood from the HSN description, requires a corrugated layer or corrugated layers with flat surface sheets, and a box made from such material is treated as a corrugated box only when the entire box is so constructed. On the facts found, the box was not manufactured out of corrugated paper or paperboard.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable under Chapter 4819.19 and not under Chapter 4819.12.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period was invocable on account of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The declarations and correspondence produced by the department differed materially from the copies relied upon by the appellant, including in the description of the goods and chapter heading particulars. The declaration itself described the goods in a manner found to be misleading. On this basis, the non-disclosure was treated as suppression of material facts justifying invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The demand was not barred by limitation and the extended period was validly invoked.

Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the department was sustained, the plea of limitation failed, and the appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the physical construction and material composition of the goods determine the heading, and where material facts are suppressed or misleadingly declared, the extended period of limitation is invocable.

---